Holder Says Sept. 11 Suspects May Be Tried in N.Y.

Some people just don't Get it !

NY Times
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. insisted on Wednesday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators may yet face trial in a federal court in the Southern District of New York, if not in lower Manhattan.

A venue in New York is “not off the table,” he said, and the Obama administration may make a decision “in a number of weeks.”

Still, in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder said that the administration was taking “into consideration the concerns that have been raised by local officials, and by the community in New York City,” about the cost and disruptiveness of security arrangements that would be needed if the case were to be prosecuted in a Manhattan courtroom. And he did not rule out moving the case to a military commission.

“The Southern District of New York, for instance, is a much larger place than simply Manhattan,” Mr. Holder said. “There’s also the possibility of trying the case in other venues beyond New York.”

Mr. Holder’s remarks drew criticism from the ranking Republican on the panel, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who said, “I don’t think the people of New York want this trial anywhere in their state or their city, or the Southern District.” Mr. Sessions argued that the case should be tried before a military commission rather than a civilian court.

Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, told Mr. Holder that there was an “overwhelming consensus” in New York that the trial “should not be held there.” Mr. Schumer later released a statement saying: “We know the administration is not going to hold the trial in New York. They should just say it already.”

Mr. Holder said last November that he had decided to hold the Sept. 11 trial at the federal courthouse in Manhattan. But two months later, the White House pulled that decision back for reconsideration after Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his prior support for holding the trial in the city, citing the cost and disruptiveness of the necessary security.

....